E youNotice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19, 21 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. On 7/6/26, Applicant amended the claims. Applicant’s Remarks address these amended claims. See the new rejection with the addition of Clyne that addresses these amended claims and Remarks.
In regards to 101, the current 101 is still found to apply. The additional elements are considered generic. The identifier, interactions, and location information are considered generic. No technical or precise features for these are specified in the claims. The location identifying is considered generic as No technical or precise features for how this occurs are actually claimed. No technical features for how the metadata indicates the user is proximate are claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Independent Claims 1, 10, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are in a statutory category of invention. However, the claims recite implementing out-of-home (OOH) advertising based on, including: including in a content, identifying to a specific location of the OOH advertising screen; receiving, at from a user device in response to a user device interacting with the digital link displayed at the OOH advertising screen: a request including and an identifier of the user device, determining, based on the embedded metadata received in the request, that the user device is proximate to the OOH advertising screen; associating the identifier of the user device with an available advertising slot of the OOH advertising screen; and transmitting, to an advertisement bidding platform, a bid request for the available advertising slot including the identifier of the user device. The claims also state bidding and custom actionable content. This is considered in the Abstract Idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity - advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The additional elements are considered the a proximate user device, a digital link, a content stream displayed at an OOH advertising screen, the digital link including embedded metadata, a content streaming service. The identifier, interactions, and location information are considered generic. No technical or precise features for these are specified in the claims. The location identifying is considered generic as No technical or precise features for how this occurs are actually claimed. No technical features for how the metadata indicates the user is proximate are claimed. These are considered generic. The generically recited computer elements do not add a practical application or meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations only perform well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Also, the additional hardware elements are: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions. Viewed separately or as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim does not provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea, in that there is no improvement to another technology or technical field, no improvement to the functioning of a computer, no application with, or by use of a particular machine, no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, no specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routing and conventional in the field, no unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, 17-19, 21 are not considered directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. The GPS in claim 8 is considered generic. No other additional elements beyond the generic are found in the dependent claims. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful description for the claimed invention, these elements do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not more than the abstract concepts identified in the claimed invention. Hence, these dependent claims are also rejected under 101.
Please see the 35 USC 101 section at the Examination Guidance and Training Materials page on the USPTO website.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 10-12, 14-16, 17, 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stafira (20150106395) in view of Clyne (20110035288).
Claim 1, 10. Stafira discloses a method comprising:
implementing a system to negotiate out-of-home (OOH) advertising based on a proximate user device, including:
including a digital link in a content stream displayed at an OOH advertising screen (see QR code or URL and content/advertisement at [25, 26]; see posters and billboard and advertising at [36] and kiosk and video screen near user at [42]), the digital link including embedded metadata identifying a specific location of the OOH advertising screen (“[38]… For example, additional collected object metadata could be location, sponsor, content, meaning or other information descriptive of the source input and/or processing result of the source input.”; note the source input or original content is correlated to its location at [43]; see metadata and location and place and particular site at [36, 38, 43]);
receiving, at a content streaming service from a user device in response to a user device interacting with the digital link displayed at the OOH advertising screen, (see user source input is received at [43]), a request including the embedded metadata (“[38]… For example, additional collected object metadata could be location, sponsor, content, meaning or other information descriptive of the source input and/or processing result of the source input.”;) and an identifier of the user device (see user and source metadata is identified at [43]; see mobile/portable device at [36]); and
determining, based on the embedded metadata received in the request, that he user device is proximate to the OOH advertising screen (“screen near to location of the user” at [42]; note the source input or original content is correlated to its location at [43], also see see metadata and location and place and particular site at [36, 38, 43]; also see ibeacon and close proximity and predetermined info relating to the location of the ibeacon [66]);
associating the identifier of the user device with an available advertising slot of the OOH advertising screen ([43]; see advertisement and particular ad selection at [75] and/or [43]; “[43]… message content is generated particular for the user and tailored for the circumstances in which the source input was captured.”).
Stafira does not explicitly disclose transmitting, to an advertising bidding platform, a bid request for the available advertising slot including the identifier of the user device. However, Stafira discloses providing the content to the user (see message content presented to user at [43]) and/or the providing particular advertising for a particular user features above. And, Clyne discloses advertisements and auctions and particular users [34] for auctions on user info that make user profiles [140, 152, 172, 203] and further discloses auctions and targeting specific user devices because of the auction [146, 148]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Clyne’s auctions and targeting specific user devices associated with auctions to Stafira’s providing particular advertising for a particular user. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better provide relevant content/advertising.
Claim 16. See the rejection of claim 1 above. Examiner notes that based on Applicant Spec at [20], MAID is interpreted as an identifier for a device and it can be fully or partly anonymous or protect PII. In further regards to independent claim 16, Stafira does not explicitly disclose a mobile advertising identifier (MAID) of the user device, using the MAID for identification. However, Stafira discloses the providing particular advertising for a particular user features above (see above) and also ads of relevance based on the same or similar users [76]. And, Clyne discloses identifiers for the user/user device that protect PII [78] and also discloses auctions on user info that make user profiles [140, 152, 172, 203] and further discloses auctions and targeting specific user devices because of the auction [146, 148]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Clyne’s identifiers and protecting PII and auctions and targeting specific user devices associated with auctions to Stafira’s providing particular advertising for a particular user. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better protect user privacy and also provide relevant content/advertising.
Claim 2, 11. Examiner notes that based on Applicant Spec at [20], MAID is interpreted as an identifier for a device and it can be fully or partly anonymous or protect PII. In further regards to independent claim 16, Stafira does not explicitly disclose method of claim 1 further comprising: the identifier includes a mobile advertising identifier (MAID) for the user device. However, Clyne discloses identifiers for the user/user device that protect PII [78]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Clyne’s identifiers and protecting PII to Stafira’s providing particular advertising for a particular user. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better protect user privacy and also provide relevant content/advertising.
Claim 3. The prior art further renders obvious the method of claim 2 further comprising: maintaining, at the content streaming service, a user data profile for the user device including the identifier (see Stafira and profile at [50], see identifier of combination of prior art above and the motivation for the using the identifier is same as already provided).
Claim 4. Stafira does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 3 further comprising: receiving, at the content streaming service, a winning advertisement bid based on the identifier. However, Stafira discloses the providing particular advertising for a particular user features above (see above) and also ads of relevance based on the same or similar users [76]. And, Clyne discloses identifiers for the user/user device that protect PII [78] and also discloses auctions on user info that make user profiles [140, 152, 172, 203] and further discloses auctions and targeting specific user devices because of the auction [146, 148]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Clyne’s identifiers and protecting PII and auctions and targeting specific user devices associated with auctions to Stafira’s providing particular advertising for a particular user. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better protect user privacy and also provide relevant content/advertising.
Claim 12, 17. The prior art further renders obvious the system of claim 10 further configured to: receive a winning advertisement bid based on the identifier (see Clyne and winning bid and providing offers to particular users at [139], and note identifier in combination above, and the motivation is the same as already provided).
Claims 14, 19. Stafira does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 10 further comprising: receive the specific location of the OOH advertising screen as global positioning system (GPS) data. However, Maher discloses using GPS for user or user environment info [46]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Maher’s GPS info related to users to Stafira user info and providing ads. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better target.
Claim 15. Stafira further discloses the system of claim 10 further configured to: provide the metadata to the user device when the user device interacts with the digital link at the OOH advertising screen (see metadata at [36], note URL at [5, 61, 90]); and determining the OOH advertising screen is proximate to the location of the user device based on the user device needing to be situated at the OOH advertising screen to interact with the digital link (see near at “[42]… or on an image or video screen near to the location of the user”).
Claim 21. Stafira further discloses the memory device of claim 16 storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform the method further comprising: identifying the OOH advertising screen as proximate to the user device (“screen near to location of the user” at [42]) based on the user device needing to be situated at the OOH advertising screen to interact with the digital link (see behavior and actively scanning and vicinity and NFC [25] or see trigger and near and NFC and vicinity [37]; also see ibeacon and close proximity and predetermined info relating to the location of the ibeacon [66]).
Claims 5-9, 13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stafira (20150106395) in view of Clyne (20110035288) in view of Maher (20100293049).
Claim 5. Stafira does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 4 further comprising: updating the user data profile with a bid value based on the winning advertisement bid. However, Maher discloses advertising to a kiosk [48] and correlating profile information with winning bids [91]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Maher’s correlating profiles and winning bids to Stafira updating profiles and providing ads. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better profile and better target.
Claim 6. Stafira further discloses the method of claim 5 further comprising: receiving, at the content streaming service, a plurality of identifiers corresponding to a plurality of user devices proximate to the OOH advertising screen; and selecting a first identifier from the plurality of identifiers for negotiating the advertisement ([66]).
Claim 7. Stafira does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 6 further comprising: selecting the first identifier based on the bid value, from a prior winning advertisement bid, in the user data profile for a corresponding user device. However, Maher further discloses selecting particular users to target and particular bids for them based on prior winning ad bid history and correlations with particular users [91- 93]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Maher’s correlating profiles and winning bids to Stafira updating profiles and providing ads. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better profile and better target.
Claim 8. Stafira does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 7 further comprising: receiving the specific location of the OOH advertising screen as global positioning system (GPS) data. However, Maher discloses using GPS for user or user environment info [46]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Maher’s GPS info related to users to Stafira user info and providing ads. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better target.
Claim 9. Stafira further discloses method of claim 7 further comprising: the digital link providing the metadata to the user device when the user device interacts with the digital link at the OOH advertising screen (see metadata at [36], note URL at [5, 61, 90]); and determining the OOH advertising screen is proximate to of the user device based on the user device needing to be situated at the OOH advertising screen to interact with the digital link (see near at “[42]… or on an image or video screen near to the location of the user”).
Claims 13, 18. The prior art further discloses the system of claim 12 further configured to: maintain a user data profile for the user device including the identifier (see Stafira and profile at [50]; see identifier citations above and the motivation is the same). Stafira does not explicitly disclose update a bid value history for the user data profile based on the winning advertisement bid; and select a first identifier for transmitting to the advertisement bidding platform, from a plurality of identifiers corresponding to a plurality of user devices proximate to the OOH advertising screen, based on the bid value history in the user data profile. However, Maher discloses advertising to a kiosk [48] and correlating profile information with winning bids [91]. Maher discloses advertising to a kiosk [48] and correlating profile information with winning bids [91] and also discloses bid values and user profiles [90, 91]. Maher further discloses selecting particular users to target and particular bids for them based on prior winning ad bid history and correlations with particular users [91- 93]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Maher’s correlating profiles and winning bids to Stafira updating profiles and providing ads. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better profile and better target.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Aaa) Note Spatschek in 12/18/25 action
Aab) Note these for billboard/kiosk and identifying location based on a response: Stafira [0040]; Anschutz [54] [62]; Beddow [0098]; Cleveland [231]; Noonan [28] [33]; Mello ad location and query is related to particular ad [73];
aa) these discloses mobile device location and then kiosks in the vicinity: Ackerman discloses ads at a kiosk [154] and determining mobile device location and then determining kiosks proximate to the mobile device ([130, 135, 50, 100]); Velder [121, 124], Ong [58, 63]; and also Williams
[0056], Snider claim 4., Maghoul claim 19, [0017], Bordel[148]… , Lowe [0040] , Flake [47], Seals [104]…, Williams kiosk in vicinity or vice versa [38];
A) Markey discloses storing winning bid and user profile [132] and Simmons discloses won/lost bid and user profile [93];
b) Clyne discloses location info from interaction and customization, Erdmann location info from interaction and customization, Rosenthal customized ad.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTHUR DURAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 7-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARTHUR DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621 7/22/26
Prosecution Insights